Can someone give me a quick summary of the facts presented by both sides of this beef? And is there ever gonna be a conclusion to this lol
Well it's incredibly stupid, and I've discussed it in length in a previous thread some months back with plenty of sources. But not being assed to do that all over again, we'll stick to the actual criminal complaint.
Part 1: Background
-Durham was appointed by Barr after various findings by the Senate, DOJ, FBI, CIA, and several other agencies concluded that Russia worked to get Trump elected. This is part of the investigate the investigators.
-After five years we've arrived at this one charge, that being, lying to law enforcement. The person accused of lying, is attorney Sussman.
-Sussman worked for a giant megafirm. Other lawyers in that 3,000+ attorney firm, represented Clinton.
-Sussman had a federal contract, a rather public one, to utilize cell phone data to track down all these shitty Alfa phones that were loaded with russian malware that were pinging off servers and were thus compromised.
-It was this work that led the FBI to uncover that a good bit of these shit russian phones were pinging off cell phone towers around Trump plaza.
Part 2: The "lie."
-Sussman bumps into the FBI director at a public conference.
-Sussman asks said FBI director if he could corroborate that these shitty phones were, in fact, being used from Trump Tower. This is before the story broke.
-FBI director writes some notes on a cocktail napkin, including the words "Says he's not working for anyone."
-FBI director laters says that he can't recall if Sussman actually said that, or if that was just his impression.
Part 3: The retardation
-So the "lie" is that Sussman claimed he wasn't working for anyone, based off the cocktail napkin.
-This is a "lie," because the work Sussman did under a federal contract was later cited by other attorneys in the same firm that went on to represent Clinton.
-Thus, Sussman worked for Clinton and "lied" about it.
-Problem is, the only evidence of the "lie," is a piece of inadmissible hearsay (the cocktail napkin), and the testimony of the FBI director who's already contradicted the charge by saying that he's can't remember what exactly Sussman said, and that he could have just concluded that the conference meeting was a genuine chat about a very public topic that Sussman had worked on.
-So the chances of this ending up in a finding of guilt, even if the charge is one of the lamest I've ever heard, is pretty much next to zero.
-Nonetheless, this hasn't stopped the right-wing derpisphere from trying to frame this as some big conspiracy to frame Trump. I suppose they are just praying that no one takes the time to look into it themselves.
-Bobgeese lost multiple bets on this very topic.
Hope that gets you up to speed.